linux-kernel - Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 5 May 2007 10:55:13 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	simo <idra@...ba.org>
Cc:	Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>,
	Gerald Carter <coffeedude.jerry@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a	distinct module

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:43:13PM +0000, simo wrote:
> > Actually I disagree. I think Christoph is correct. These
> > are two independent protocols and should be in two different
> > modules.
> 
> They are independent the same way NFS v4 is independent from NFS v3 and
> v2. Independent but related, and most importantly, one is the fallback
> of the other.

Just FYI: although nfs2/3 and nfs4 are in the same kernel module they
actually are different file_system_types, and there is no automatic
fallback in the kernel.  Given how little is actually shared between
nfs v2/3 and 4 it might have been a better idea to make it a totally
separate module.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/